Frank wrote:
> > Message [1] points out a bug in the DAML+OIL spec that we are about to be
> > bitten by as well if we don't take care. (Essentially the current
> > DAML+OIL spec of sameClassAs forces its arguments to be of type
> > daml:Class, even if without that statement they would only be of type
> > rdfs:Class).
Peter replied:
> My understanding is that this was a feature, not a bug. The use of
> sameClassAs in importing terms from RDF/RDFS is thus the bug.
That's certainly one way of looking at it, but realise that >*we*< committed
this error, and that it would be a very natural thing to do for many people
(including us, apparently), to apply sameClassAs to rdfs:Class's, with
unexpected consequences.
Do you agree that there must be a way to import terms from RDF(S) ?
(serious question, because I'm not sure you do)
The authors propose to fix the bug by using equivalentTo, since its domain
and range are so loose that they don't entail any unexpected consequences for
their arguments.
I think if we just fix the bug in the DAML+OIL spec in this way and move on,
then we've missed the point of the message: the use of sameClassAs has rather
unexpected consequences, caused by (among others) the relation between
daml:Class and rdfs:Class. I would hate to design OWL with the same gaping
opportunity for bugs.
Frank.
----
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Aug/0022.html